Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think "we revoked your parent company's account for breaking the App Store's terms and conditions" is a legitimate reason. Otherwise what's to stop every company kicked out of the App Store from just spinning up a subsidiary?
well is it in the contractual agreement? especially if their account existed before the parent companies account was terminated for something the daughter company hasn't done anything wrong.

It opens up other opportunities for a new case
 
Neither side really comes off particularly well in the whole thing.

At the end of the day Apple is preventing its own customers from playing Fortnite out of pettiness. Personally I don't care because it's not my thing, but if it was I'd be very annoyed with Apple.
It's available on a gazillion other different platforms
 
Apple has declined the submission which also revoked notarization for Epic Games Store.
Note that this is according to Tim Sweeney, and has yet to be verified with an Apple rep. We already know that Sweeney plays fast and loose with the truth, so I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt. He's probably just trying to do an end run around the US court system and get Apple in more trouble with the EU courts, since that's where Epic has the most wins, to date.
 
Note that this is according to Tim Sweeney, and has yet to be verified with an Apple rep. We already know that Sweeney plays fast and loose with the truth, so I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt. He's probably just trying to do an end run around the US court system and get Apple in more trouble with the EU courts, since that's where Epic has the most wins, to date.
If true Apple are complete idiots if they did block then since they’re already in hot water in the EU
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BugeyeSTI
If true Apple are complete idiots if they did block then since they’re already in hot water in the EU
I wholeheartedly agree -- they would be complete idiots, which is why I don't think that Sweeney's story holds water. But the devil is in the details, as they say. The very obvious first question is: did Apple actually do anything remotely resembling what Sweeney alleges? Or does it only appear that they did so? And either way, why would any adverse decisions associated with the US App Store actually affect anything at all with regards to the EU market's Epic Game Store?

It seems to me the more plausible scenario is that there was no person at Apple involved in the process; this was all automated. The "rejection" was likely an automatic system response after a timeout period, and if this automated rejection did indeed affect the EU market in the way that Sweeney alleges, that would likewise have been another automatic system response, most likely designed to mitigate potential damages when a bad actor is flagged.

Which leads to another question: what all was communicated during the conversation between Epic and Apple, when Sweeney "notified" them of his intentions? Did Apple specifically tell him that this is what would happen, and that maybe -- just maybe -- he shouldn't do it?

That is to say, I wonder if perhaps Sweeney pushed the US App Store submission knowing full well what the optics would look like for Apple, after such an automatic rejection?

Of course, we can all reasonably foresee that this is going to make the EU angry at Apple. What we don't know is how the US court will view these things, particularly if it turns out that Epic was indeed trying to do an end run around the US court by way of the EU court -- which, quite frankly, is what really matters in this situation. Judges are particularly unkind to anyone who tries to usurp their authority in a court case.
 
I wholeheartedly agree -- they would be complete idiots, which is why I don't think that Sweeney's story holds water. But the devil is in the details, as they say. The very obvious first question is: did Apple actually do anything remotely resembling what Sweeney alleges? Or does it only appear that they did so? And either way, why would any adverse decisions associated with the US App Store actually affect anything at all with regards to the EU market's Epic Game Store?

It seems to me the more plausible scenario is that there was no person at Apple involved in the process; this was all automated. The "rejection" was likely an automatic system response after a timeout period, and if this automated rejection did indeed affect the EU market in the way that Sweeney alleges, that would likewise have been another automatic system response, most likely designed to mitigate potential damages when a bad actor is flagged.

Which leads to another question: what all was communicated during the conversation between Epic and Apple, when Sweeney "notified" them of his intentions? Did Apple specifically tell him that this is what would happen, and that maybe -- just maybe -- he shouldn't do it?

That is to say, I wonder if perhaps Sweeney pushed the US App Store submission knowing full well what the optics would look like for Apple, after such an automatic rejection?

Of course, we can all reasonably foresee that this is going to make the EU angry at Apple. What we don't know is how the US court will view these things, particularly if it turns out that Epic was indeed trying to do an end run around the US court by way of the EU court -- which, quite frankly, is what really matters in this situation. Judges are particularly unkind to anyone who tries to usurp their authority in a court case.
That would be an interesting way to tackle the issue and bait Apple in to a situation with only bad options. Give your opponent a dilemma instead of a choice
 
"Sweeney said that he would be "very surprised" if Apple "decided to brave the geopolitical storm of blocking a major app from iOS,"

What a delusional jackass. It's been what, 4 or 5 years that the stupid game hasn't been on iOS. Nobody gives a rip. His "geopolitical storm" is more like a fart in the wind.
 
Then you were not really seriously into gaming anyway
Considering i Pay for my games on iOS Stardew, Mario Run and many more I'd say I'm serious into gaming on iOS and Apple blocking me form enjoying Fortnite on my Phone is a big pain in the ass.

I use my phone for gaming on the go since it's easier and smaller than both my Steam Deck and switch.
 
Does Apple have to accept every company? You would think it is their platform and they can pick and choose who they want just like a private retail store doesn’t have to sell your merchandise. Oh wait, people will cry and sue if they do that.
It all depends on the reach. If you’re the only game in town or close to it and yield too much market power - things need to be regulated to allow for competition, which is a cornerstone of our society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vastolorde97
Considering i Pay for my games on iOS Stardew, Mario Run and many more I'd say I'm serious into gaming on iOS and Apple blocking me form enjoying Fortnite on my Phone is a big pain in the ass.

I use my phone for gaming on the go since it's easier and smaller than both my Steam Deck and switch.
And how long did it take for emulation. Apple is for one thing only, the Benjamin’s - not a problem inherently, unless your approach is nauseatingly cynical as has blatantly been
 
Again, Apple is complying with the order, despite having already requested the injunction.

Nothing in the order says they have to let Epic back in the store. The same judge ruled Apple was within its rights to kick Epic out and didn’t have to let them back in. The order only said Apple had to allow link outs without commission. It changed nothing about her previous decision regarding Epic’s status.
How did this work out?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.